Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: Switzerland’s Struggle Against Fiscal Imperialism

  1. #1

    Switzerland’s Struggle Against Fiscal Imperialism



    Interesting article on the US’s assault on the Swiss banking system, GATCA, and attempts to create a centralized one-world government.

    http://www.internationalman.com/arti...al-imperialism
    "Paper money has the effect to ruin commerce,oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice"

    ~GEORGE WASHINGTON



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The Swiss love to exercise that meme of being "neutral," but in reality, if you are playing in the international system, you really can't be operationally neutral - their attempt to push that narrative over their responsibility as a player in the international arena is merely an attempt to gain an advantage over other nations that do play by the rules. I say, if you want to reap the benefits of an international, global economy, you need to play by the rules. It's like having a neighbor who refuses to pay taxes, though everyone else on the block is shouldering their fair share. If they want to play with our money, they need to play by the rules - just like every other good actor.
    Reflect the Light!

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    The Swiss love to exercise that meme of being "neutral," but in reality, if you are playing in the international system, you really can't be operationally neutral - their attempt to push that narrative over their responsibility as a player in the international arena is merely an attempt to gain an advantage over other nations that do play by the rules. I say, if you want to reap the benefits of an international, global economy, you need to play by the rules. It's like having a neighbor who refuses to pay taxes, though everyone else on the block is shouldering their fair share. If they want to play with our money, they need to play by the rules - just like every other good actor.
    Is this serious? Or sarcasm? The Swiss can do whatever they want. And if my neighbor isn't paying his or her taxes I would congratulate them and it would increase my faith in humanity.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Is this serious? Or sarcasm? The Swiss can do whatever they want. And if my neighbor isn't paying his or her taxes I would congratulate them and it would increase my faith in humanity.
    Serious.

    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Now, that said, can't we do whatever we want? Including excluding them from doing business with the US dollar?

    If my neighbor wasn't paying their taxes, I'd say they're violating the social contract and it would lessen my faith in humanity.
    Reflect the Light!

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Serious.

    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Now, that said, can't we do whatever we want? Including excluding them from doing business with the US dollar?

    If my neighbor wasn't paying their taxes, I'd say they're violating the social contract and it would lessen my faith in humanity.
    You can exclude them from whatever you want. And if your neighbor didn't sign a social contract, they aren't obligated to pay anything.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    You can exclude them from whatever you want. And if your neighbor didn't sign a social contract, they aren't obligated to pay anything.
    Great. Then I contend that the Swiss are choosing to play by the rules, lest they be excluded from the US dollar system. We can make ourselves out to be bad guys, but what's the point? Why should they have the advantage of playing by a different set of rules?

    I don't think they have to sign anything - their continued residence in the country is tacit acceptance of they system they choose to live under - including paying taxes. If they don't like it, they can find another system that is better.
    Reflect the Light!

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    If my neighbor wasn't paying their taxes, I'd say they're violating the social contract and it would lessen my faith in humanity.
    You sir, are a great American. I too am proud to pay my taxes. It's our duty, our obligation to this great, great, country.

    Paying my taxes is the least I can do, for all the roads and highways and all the other forms of paved travel that my taxes have provided me.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    You sir, are a great American. I too am proud to pay my taxes. It's our duty, our obligation to this great, great, country.

    Paying my taxes is the least I can do, for all the roads and highways and all the other forms of paved travel that my taxes have provided me.
    I hate to encourage you, but this guy deserves it. Have at it.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Great. Then I contend that the Swiss are choosing to play by the rules, lest they be excluded from the US dollar system. We can make ourselves out to be bad guys, but what's the point? Why should they have the advantage of playing by a different set of rules?

    I don't think they have to sign anything - their continued residence in the country is tacit acceptance of they system they choose to live under - including paying taxes. If they don't like it, they can find another system that is better.
    I don't have any idea what you are going on about with the Swiss. I'm unaware of what rules they should be playing by, nor do I give a $#@!.

    As for the social contract, I suppose you are right. If you are being beaten and raped, if you don't fight them off and run away that must signify consent. Makes sense.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I don't have any idea what you are going on about with the Swiss. I'm unaware of what rules they should be playing by, nor do I give a $#@!.

    As for the social contract, I suppose you are right. If you are being beaten and raped, if you don't fight them off and run away that must signify consent. Makes sense.
    There are international banking laws - that is the set of rules that govern bank-to-bank transactions, and countries' banking.

    This is the internet, and you are free to create an equivalence between being criminally assaulted and having to pay taxes for public schools, roads, social security, etc. You have that right. I, however, see a distinct difference between those things.
    Reflect the Light!

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    There are international banking laws - that is the set of rules that govern bank-to-bank transactions, and countries' banking.

    This is the internet, and you are free to create an equivalence between being criminally assaulted and having to pay taxes for public schools, roads, social security, etc. You have that right. I, however, see a distinct difference between those things.
    No one on Earth has the authority to make international banking laws.

    And I see no fundamental difference between those things. Both are the use of violence against me and a violation of my rights.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    No one on Earth has the authority to make international banking laws.

    And I see no fundamental difference between those things. Both are the use of violence against me and a violation of my rights.
    I agree with that statement (in a vacuum). No one has the ability to tell anyone else what to do (i.e., we literally can't tell the Swiss what to do in this case).

    What we can do - what we legitimately have the right to do - is to direct the rules that need to be followed when conducting business with our monetary denomination. They, of course (as any libertarian would defend) have the right to conduct business with any other medium they choose; however, when they choose to conduct business with our dollar, they are subject to our rules. We therefore have the ability to enter into agreements with other nations and create banking rules. Are you suggesting that international banking laws are somehow an absolute wrong?

    I'm not sure what you're claiming is violence against you or what is a violation of your rights...If you bought property from an entity, then you are subject to the laws which governed that entity's ownership; hence you are subject to the laws of the United States (since I assume you are likely posting from the US and probably "own" property in the US) - no one can "own" property in an absolute sense (I know that may piss off some of the purists here). What we own is a right to that property to dispose of it and use it in accordance with the laws of the society in which we live.

    Directing that you pay taxes is not a violation of your rights. You do not have the right to engage in a society without being subject to the requirements that society demands of its adherents.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 03-07-2015 at 12:33 AM.
    Reflect the Light!

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    The Swiss love to exercise that meme of being "neutral," but in reality, if you are playing in the international system, you really can't be operationally neutral
    I am not aware of the Swiss claiming neutrality on any issue save that of military adventures. What, for example, would "economic neutrality" even mean? Sounds to me like a zero-sum operation, pushing out value precisely equal to that which comes in, which makes no rational sense in a world that operated on added-value, rightly or wrongly.

    - their attempt to push that narrative over their responsibility as a player in the international arena is merely an attempt to gain an advantage over other nations that do play by the rules.
    You presume much here. Responsibility? What responsibility would that be, specifically? You imply through apparent tone that the search for economic advantage is somehow tainted. If this is correct, then on what do you base this? At this point, you sound like a progressive socialist with all this namby pamby flitting about with innuendo to suggest things that perhaps you refuse to say straight out. "International arena" could be seen as holding much connotation of "community".

    And of whose rules do you speak? The "community's"?

    I say, if you want to reap the benefits of an international, global economy, you need to play by the rules.
    Say whatever you want; it does not mean anyone will toe your line. Do you even know what those rules are? Do you know what they mean? Do you know who made them and for what purpose? Do you know whether they serve the stated purposes properly? Who established them and what was the authority for imposing them upon everyone? What was the objective standard of contrivance? How do we determine the propriety and authority of such rules?

    I could go on quite a while longer with questions, but if you can answer these to objective satisfaction then I will concede your point. Good luck with that.

    It's like having a neighbor who refuses to pay taxes, though everyone else on the block is shouldering their fair share. If they want to play with our money, they need to play by the rules - just like every other good actor.
    OK, so your truer colors as a beaten and defeated dog whose sense of self respect, such as may have been born into you, has long winged its way into the mists of eternity at the hand of those who have flogged every shred of good sense and self esteem from the marrow of your bones. Gotcha.

    You apparently refuse to acknowledge taxation as theft. Having not sufficient esteem of yourself, you meekly submit to the will of others. When that neighbor who, in refusing to go meekly into that night, stands tall and says "no!", you are reminded of your own wretchedness and want that reminder removed from your sight. That is when you lean upon your whipmaster to be the good bully boy and make stop the agony of which the good neighbor who loves himself rightly is your perceived cause. But to no avail because beneath it all, it is actually you who are the root of your own miseries and will never be free of them until the day you choose to stand as a man and no longer slither on your belly in the manner of a lowly and despised serpent.

    Meh... a bit prosaic, but it gets the point across, though perhaps the effort is lost on you.

    Sweet Jesus... "their fair share"... you sound like Obama. Are you? Is Bammy actually honoring RPF with a visit? No really, the similarities are striking.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Serious.
    He writes, apparently unaware that he ought not be proud of this.

    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
    Wherever it is you were "educated", I would suggest you vent some rage there. I will stop just short of suggesting you arm yourself and go to town - that would be uncivil - but some serious ass-whooping should be in order because you were gypped in grandly criminal fashion, based on what you write, so far.

    The point here is that you are dead-wrong. You are conflating the moral value of "effect" with that of "harm". This is grand FAIL. I hold and unwaveringly reserve the right to do ANYTHING I choose so long as I do not harm anyone. I may have plenty of effect on others, and if they don't like it, that is pretty well tough $#@!. And that cuts all ways. Perhaps you are a stand up comedian and I think your schtick is utter crap. If it is that objectionable, I can get up and leave. I can boo and hiss at you or tell you that your mother wears combat boots. But I have no right to force you to stop because you have not harmed me. Yah, hello there... anyone home?

    It seems clear to me that you stand in some dire need of proper learning on such matters.

    Now, that said, can't we do whatever we want? Including excluding them from doing business with the US dollar?
    No. The dollars in their possession are their property, not that of the US government. Once the Treasury releases them to banks, they are no longer Treasury property until justly repatriated into those hands.

    If my neighbor wasn't paying their taxes, I'd say they're violating the social contract and it would lessen my faith in humanity.
    You really need to find yourself a better reading list. "Social contract"? Really? Define it. Then demonstrate its existence. Given the six elements of contracts, I see no evidence of this "social contract" whatsoever. There may have been an offer - element the first. There has been no acceptance from me - element the second. That already says that no contract exists. There may or may not be "capacity", depending upon the precise definition at hand, so let us call this one good, element the third. There is no consideration for me, element the fourth. There is no intention by me to enter into legal relations with... well, whom, exactly? - element the fifth. I see no possibly way that such a contract could be lawful, if for no other reason than that criminal activity is involved including the felony of taxation - element the sixth.

    So as you can readily observe, at best we have in evidence two of the six elements. Therefore, the so-called "social contract" is not. What we can call it, however, is $#@! on a shingle; an utter nonsense cleverly contrived as an instrument of manipulation whose obvious purpose is to convince people to accept a set of conditions that, couched honestly, they would likely reject in toto, with vigor, and perhaps with a level of annoyance such that the peddler risked finding himself run out of Dodge on a rail after a goodly beating, some tar, and generously applied feathers.

    Social contract, my ass.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  17. #15
    I'll skip the majority of the post that is a personal attack...

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You apparently refuse to acknowledge taxation as theft.
    Yes, I do not acknowledge that taxation is somehow theft. Theft is defined as taking something from someone against their will. As a precondition for living in this wonderful country, we are required to pay taxes. You can pout and moan and identify taxation as a "theft," but it is not in the same class of actions as if someone stole your car from your driveway. You are 100% free to emigrate to another country that has a different system in place.

    Yes, paying their fair share as a precondition for living in this society and reaping its collective benefits carries a certain, few, obligations - namely that you need to pay your share of income to keep everything working as advertised. I don't lose sleep over that fact. Do I think there is a better way? Do I think there is a more fair way? Yes on both counts, but I don't equate the principle of taxation with criminality. Nor was our country founded on such a notion. Remember "taxation without representation..."

    Lastly, I do feel the need to highlight the proper use of "affect" vs. "effect" since I am somewhat of a grammar nazi...

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    He writes, apparently unaware that he ought not be proud of this.
    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Wherever it is you were "educated", I would suggest you vent some rage there. I will stop just short of suggesting you arm yourself and go to town - that would be uncivil - but some serious ass-whooping should be in order because you were gypped in grandly criminal fashion, based on what you write, so far.

    The point here is that you are dead-wrong. You are conflating the moral value of "effect" with that of "harm". This is grand FAIL. I hold and unwaveringly reserve the right to do ANYTHING I choose so long as I do not harm anyone. I may have plenty of effect on others, and if they don't like it, that is pretty well tough $#@!. And that cuts all ways. Perhaps you are a stand up comedian and I think your schtick is utter crap. If it is that objectionable, I can get up and leave. I can boo and hiss at you or tell you that your mother wears combat boots. But I have no right to force you to stop because you have not harmed me. Yah, hello there... anyone home?
    "Effect" is a noun - "Affect" is a verb. So yes, I used the term properly. That said, I agree with you that I should have qualified it as negatively affect vs. your critique that I said just "affect." On that point I agree.

    On the subject of venting to the place where I was "educated," I think it's unnecessary. Here's a reference for you: affect vs. effect. I also gave you a pretty thoughtful response in this thread. Have anything to add?
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 03-07-2015 at 09:08 PM.
    Reflect the Light!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Serious.

    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Now, that said, can't we do whatever we want? Including excluding them from doing business with the US dollar?

    If my neighbor wasn't paying their taxes, I'd say they're violating the social contract and it would lessen my faith in humanity.
    You can argue via the butterfly effect, that literally anything can have an effect on anything at all. My speech choices might affect someone else's reasoning, thereby changing outcomes. Therefore, my speech should be regulated. It all sounds like an attempt to justify unwarranted powers to me.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I'll skip the majority of the post that is a personal attack...



    Yes, I do not acknowledge that taxation is somehow theft. Theft is defined as taking something from someone against their will. As a precondition for living in this wonderful country, we are required to pay taxes. You can pout and moan and identify taxation as a "theft," but it is not in the same class of actions as if someone stole your car from your driveway. You are 100% free to emigrate to another country that has a different system in place.

    Yes, paying their fair share as a precondition for living in this society and reaping its collective benefits carries a certain, few, obligations - namely that you need to pay your share of income to keep everything working as advertised. I don't lose sleep over that fact. Do I think there is a better way? Do I think there is a more fair way? Yes on both counts, but I don't equate the principle of taxation with criminality. Nor was our country founded on such a notion. Remember "taxation without representation..."

    Lastly, I do feel the need to highlight the proper use of "affect" vs. "effect" since I am somewhat of a grammar nazi...



    I agree, they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.



    "Effect" is a noun - "Affect" is a verb. So yes, I used the term properly. That said, I agree with you that I should have qualified it as negatively affect vs. your critique that I said just "affect." On that point I agree.

    On the subject of venting to the place where I was "educated," I think it's unnecessary. Here's a reference for you: affect vs. effect. I also gave you a pretty thoughtful response in this thread. Have anything to add?
    Affect is often used as a noun. To describe someone's affect, the 'personality' they exude, would be using affect properly as a noun.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I'm not sure what you're claiming is violence against you or what is a violation of your rights...If you bought property from an entity, then you are subject to the laws which governed that entity's ownership; hence you are subject to the laws of the United States (since I assume you are likely posting from the US and probably "own" property in the US) - no one can "own" property in an absolute sense (I know that may piss off some of the purists here). What we own is a right to that property to dispose of it and use it in accordance with the laws of the society in which we live.
    That's all I needed to see. Without private property ownership there can be no rights. And without rights, we are just slaves that get to enjoy the crumbs our masters allow us to have. You are welcome to that opinion. I fight with enough people elsewhere that share those views, consciously or not, and I don't feel like doing it here.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    That's all I needed to see. Without private property ownership there can be no rights. And without rights, we are just slaves that get to enjoy the crumbs our masters allow us to have. You are welcome to that opinion. I fight with enough people elsewhere that share those views, consciously or not, and I don't feel like doing it here.
    Yeah, so you are welcome to cherry pick a portion of what I said, and react to that portion as if that somehow makes your point valid. What I actually said though, is that no one can "own" property in an absolute sense, and that is true under our current system - and IMO should be true. What that means is that if you happened to buy beachfront property in LA or wherever, that property is not owned in perpetuity. Can you imagine a world in which there is no more property up for sale? I can. Does that now mean that you don't have rights because you don't own property? What a nonsensical statement and belief.

    Besides, when you claim you "own" property, who exactly do you think enforces that right? Who exactly do you own it from? What makes your claim to it any more valid than anyone else's? I submit that it is the society in which you live that recognizes your right to own the property - in our case/system that is reflected by the state government you happen to reside in. Without some form of authority to appeal to, we'd have mere anarchy.
    Reflect the Light!

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post

    I don't think they have to sign anything - their continued residence in the country is tacit acceptance of they system they choose to live under - including paying taxes. If they don't like it, they can find another system that is better.
    Ok, the Chinese should just accept their fate & accept the lack free speech & whatever else, or move to a different country? The slaves fighting for equal treatment should have been told to just accept their situation or move to a different country? Women fighting for equal rights should have moved to a different country instead of spreaking out for their rights? There can be many more examples I'm sure but if you haven't gotten the point so far then you'll never do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    There are international banking laws - that is the set of rules that govern bank-to-bank transactions, and countries' banking.

    This is the internet, and you are free to create an equivalence between being criminally assaulted and having to pay taxes for public schools, roads, social security, etc. You have that right. I, however, see a distinct difference between those things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Yes, I do not acknowledge that taxation is somehow theft. Theft is defined as taking something from someone against their will. As a precondition for living in this wonderful country, we are required to pay taxes. You can pout and moan and identify taxation as a "theft," but it is not in the same class of actions as if someone stole your car from your driveway. You are 100% free to emigrate to another country that has a different system in place.
    Ok, so I can threaten you & others to give me your money but so long as I use a chunk of it to offer some public services I wouldn't be in the wrong? Fantastic!
    This is what pepole within governments do, they legitimize their robbery by spending some of it on public services while keeping a chunk of it for themselves.

    It's wrong to rob & steal but it's ok when people within government do it, it's wrong to force people but it's ok when people within government do it, we should have equal rights but people within governments should have more rights than rest of the people!

    It's like the elephant in the room, most people just choose to ignore it because it shatters their illusions that they'd been taught & believed in for so long & hence, the cognitive dissonance.

    I don't expect you or anybody to say that they are going to stand up & take up arms against the people within the government or to say that they know that we can have an orderly society even if the government ceased to exist tomorrow.
    No, I don't expect that from people but what I do expect, especially from those who claim affinity for logic, reasoning & morality, is to at least accept that if they support equal rights, & oppose theft/robbery & aggressive force (different from defensive force) against others then these things are WRONG even when people within the government do them!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    "Effect" is a noun - "Affect" is a verb. So yes, I used the term properly. That said, I agree with you that I should have qualified it as negatively affect vs. your critique that I said just "affect." On that point I agree.

    On the subject of venting to the place where I was "educated," I think it's unnecessary. Here's a reference for you: affect vs. effect. I also gave you a pretty thoughtful response in this thread. Have anything to add?
    Typically, I don't like being a grammar-nazi but actually, both the words can be used as either a verb or a noun, & in fact, the links you've inserted already say so.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Ok, the Chinese should just accept their fate & accept the lack free speech & whatever else, or move to a different country? The slaves fighting for equal treatment should have been told to just accept their situation or move to a different country? Women fighting for equal rights should have moved to a different country instead of spreaking out for their rights? There can be many more examples I'm sure but if you haven't gotten the point so far then you'll never do.
    No. Those are examples of human rights you are citing. In all cases, human rights should be respected and adhered to by the governing powers in a society. Hiding your money in another country to avoid paying taxes in compliance of the laws of the country you live in, is not a human right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Ok, so I can threaten you & others to give me your money but so long as I use a chunk of it to offer some public services I wouldn't be in the wrong? Fantastic! This is what pepole within governments do, they legitimize their robbery by spending some of it on public services while keeping a chunk of it for themselves.
    That's a neat trick you're pulling, but it's just a verbal trick, and if you have actually convinced yourself that paying taxes to the government that provides for national defense, etc, is characteristically the same as being robbed at gunpoint or having your car stolen out from your driveway, I'm sorry, there's not going to be much I can do to convince you that you are wrong. Next time you pay your taxes, why don't you call the police and file a report?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    It's wrong to rob & steal but it's ok when people within government do it, it's wrong to force people but it's ok when people within government do it, we should have equal rights but people within governments should have more rights than rest of the people!

    It's like the elephant in the room, most people just choose to ignore it because it shatters their illusions that they'd been taught & believed in for so long & hence, the cognitive dissonance.
    No, it is wrong for the government to steal. It is called eminent domain. It is called property seizure. When the government engages in those practices, it is improper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    I don't expect you or anybody to say that they are going to stand up & take up arms against the people within the government or to say that they know that we can have an orderly society even if the government ceased to exist tomorrow.
    No, I don't expect that from people but what I do expect, especially from those who claim affinity for logic, reasoning & morality, is to at least accept that if they support equal rights, & oppose theft/robbery & aggressive force (different from defensive force) against others then these things are WRONG even when people within the government do them!
    I do!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Typically, I don't like being a grammar-nazi but actually, both the words can be used as either a verb or a noun, & in fact, the links you've inserted already say so.
    Ok, this is going to be my last comment on the "effect" vs "affect" debate because it's getting seriously old. Yes, the word "effect" can be used as a verb occasionally (like 5% of the time). Yes, I was aware that the site I linked to indicated that "effect" could be used as such (as in "to bring about"). Unfortunately, that is not the manner in which it was used, or in which the initial correction was given. I provided it as a reference to the individual who improperly corrected a correct use of the word. Lots of times on message boards, people don't like to just take people's word for things - especially on message boards meant to inspire debate and where there are sometimes heated disagreements - hence the link to an external reference. Thanks for highlighting, once again, the proper use of the word.
    Reflect the Light!

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    That's a neat trick you're pulling, but it's just a verbal trick, and if you have actually convinced yourself that paying taxes to the government that provides for national defense, etc, is characteristically the same as being robbed at gunpoint or having your car stolen out from your driveway, I'm sorry, there's not going to be much I can do to convince you that you are wrong. Next time you pay your taxes, why don't you call the police and file a report?
    You're right, it's a neat trick. How about I dumb it down for you. You are going to voluntarily send me a third of your income so that I can help those that need it and go kill some ragheads thousands of miles away to keep you safe. Understand? I'll PM you my address.

    If I don't see payment, I won't steal it from you. I will point a gun in your face and lock you in a cage, and take a few things from your house while I'm there (asset forfeiture). Got it? Completely voluntary. No robbery at all.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    No. Those are examples of human rights you are citing. In all cases, human rights should be respected and adhered to by the governing powers in a society. Hiding your money in another country to avoid paying taxes in compliance of the laws of the country you live in, is not a human right.
    What if he converts it all to gold and keeps it in his bedroom in a habitat at the bottom of the ocean in international waters?

    That's a neat trick you're pulling, but it's just a verbal trick, and if you have actually convinced yourself that paying taxes to the government that provides for national defense, etc, is characteristically the same as being robbed at gunpoint or having your car stolen out from your driveway, I'm sorry, there's not going to be much I can do to convince you that you are wrong. Next time you pay your taxes, why don't you call the police and file a report?
    To be technical then, characteristically, taxation is more like racketeering and extortion. Resist the capo too much, and you will meet his enforcers, count on it.

    No, it is wrong for the government to steal. It is called eminent domain. It is called property seizure. When the government engages in those practices, it is improper.
    Eminent domain is quite proper, even when it's morally wrong, while asset forfeiture is always improper, even in the one lotto case where it's "morally right." Eminent domain condemnations have gone far away from their constitutional intent, such that there is now horrible abuse such as Kelo vs New London, and many states are acting to correct that with their own Constitutional amendments (some of those attempts, like in NC, are just for show).

    But at the end of the day, eminent domain is a Constitutional power that has been delegated to the state, while asset forfeiture is some random ass-backward doctrine invented by lawyers, to seize money from anyone, anywhere, at any time. Keep the money they seize, and use it for whatever they want off-budget.

    They may be on the same sphere, as in "the taking of property," but they are really polar opposites in every other way.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    What if he converts it all to gold and keeps it in his bedroom in a habitat at the bottom of the ocean in international waters?
    You can store your money wherever you like, but tax avoidance is a crime. Remember that our nation was founded upon "no taxation without representation." It wasn't founded upon "no taxation whatsoever." We weren't so naive to think that a nation could be run without a funding stream.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    To be technical then, characteristically, taxation is more like racketeering and extortion. Resist the capo too much, and you will meet his enforcers, count on it.
    The only true part of your statement is that you'll meet the enforcers. I will say again though, extortion involves non-voluntary action in a relationship. Citizens who voluntarily stay in place (i.e. remain citizens), but who whine about having to pay the price of admission...well, I just don't have much sympathy for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Eminent domain is quite proper, even when it's morally wrong, while asset forfeiture is always improper, even in the one lotto case where it's "morally right." Eminent domain condemnations have gone far away from their constitutional intent, such that there is now horrible abuse such as Kelo vs New London, and many states are acting to correct that with their own Constitutional amendments (some of those attempts, like in NC, are just for show).

    But at the end of the day, eminent domain is a Constitutional power that has been delegated to the state, while asset forfeiture is some random ass-backward doctrine invented by lawyers, to seize money from anyone, anywhere, at any time. Keep the money they seize, and use it for whatever they want off-budget.

    They may be on the same sphere, as in "the taking of property," but they are really polar opposites in every other way.
    I disagree, but will highlight for the crowd that your argument justifying eminent domain because it is a constitutional power, while simultaneously resisting taxes (which - news flash - is also a constitutional power) should create a lot of cognitive dissonance in your mind.
    Reflect the Light!



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    No. Those are examples of human rights you are citing. In all cases, human rights should be respected and adhered to by the governing powers in a society. Hiding your money in another country to avoid paying taxes in compliance of the laws of the country you live in, is not a human right.
    Who decides what is a human right & what isn't? The government? Why do they get to decide & we don't? Some of us would say that not being robbed by the government is a human right! Why do they have the right to decide what rights are? Why do they have more rights than rest of the people? This isn't equality, this is classism! Sorry, I assumed that you believed in equal rights!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    That's a neat trick you're pulling, but it's just a verbal trick, and if you have actually convinced yourself that paying taxes to the government that provides for national defense, etc, is characteristically the same as being robbed at gunpoint or having your car stolen out from your driveway, I'm sorry, there's not going to be much I can do to convince you that you are wrong. Next time you pay your taxes, why don't you call the police and file a report?
    Actually, you're the one pulling tricks.
    Robbery is wrong........but not when government does it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    No, it is wrong for the government to steal. It is called eminent domain. It is called property seizure. When the government engages in those practices, it is improper.
    Another "neat trick" of yours.
    It's ok when government robs your money but not when they seize your property!

    Ok, let's say they seize your property so that they can put a public school there. That should be alright I guess!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I do!
    Nope, sorry, it doesn't seem like you support equal rights at all. You believe that there should be two classes of people - those within the government & the rest, & those within the government have rights to do things that the rest don't!
    Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 03-15-2015 at 10:47 AM.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  30. #26
    Taxes isn't theft because your government loves you. It's not the government's fault you don't love it back.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    You can store your money wherever you like, but tax avoidance is a crime. Remember that our nation was founded upon "no taxation without representation." It wasn't founded upon "no taxation whatsoever." We weren't so naive to think that a nation could be run without a funding stream.
    Those who believe in logic & reason actually apply them, not just blindly follow what someone said, it's called appeal to authority, & it is something that free-thinking people avoid engaging in. Sure, there's nothing wrong with presenting a thought that someone else has/had put forth but it should never be accepted unquestionably.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    extortion involves non-voluntary action in a relationship. Citizens who voluntarily stay in place (i.e. remain citizens), but who whine about having to pay the price of admission...well, I just don't have much sympathy for them.
    Even mafia often claim territories & make people pay for living within "their territory", it doesn't make it "voluntary". People pay the mafia because they are being threatened, & the same holds true for government's extortion-racket!
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  32. #28
    I still haven't received your payment Tansill. You are lucky I am gracious enough to give you fair warning. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Who decides what is a human right & what isn't? The government? Why do they get to decide & we don't? Some of us would say that not being robbed by the government is a human right! Why do they have the right to decide what rights are? Why do they have more rights than rest of the people? This isn't equality, this is classism! Sorry, I assumed that you believed in equal rights!
    I see the core of your question. You are asking a question which can only be answered by an appeal to authority, so here it is: WE collectively decide what is right and wrong via the democratic process. I understand that it is not perfect, but it is the best we have, and I frankly don't see an alternative. You don't like that the people around you have chosen a system that decides to tax everyone with the threat of violence in the background. Move or change it.

    I don't think that the government should have more rights than people, or that companies should be identified as people either.

    This is a serious question for you though: to what authority do you appeal for property ownership? Said another way, who is it you "own" property from? Is it just finders-keepers from now until the end of time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    It's ok when government robs your money but not when they seize your property!

    Ok, let's say they seize your property so that they can put a public school there. That should be alright I guess!

    Nope, sorry, it doesn't seem like you support equal rights at all. You believe that there should be two classes of people - those within the government & the rest, & those within the government have rights to do things that the rest don't!
    I don't agree. The government robs, IMO, when they seize property unjustly or exercise eminent domain on behalf of a corporate entity. The same is true if they seize any other asset class.
    Reflect the Light!

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I still haven't received your payment Tansill. You are lucky I am gracious enough to give you fair warning. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
    That is not how our government operates, and you know it.
    Reflect the Light!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Fiscal cliff! fiscal Cliff! the sky is falling! vs the Paul Plan????
    By A_Silent_Majority_Member in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 12:46 PM
  2. Switzerland pays price for fiscal sanity
    By Zippyjuan in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 08:12 AM
  3. Corporate imperialism
    By forsmant in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 01:03 PM
  4. Facing Fiscal Meltdown, Municipalities Struggle With Pensions
    By FrankRep in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 03:08 PM
  5. Imperialism?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 09:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •